[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 27 (Wednesday, March 5, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1940-S1942]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                     U.S. MERCHANDISE TRADE DEFICIT

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I come to the floor today because we will 
be taking up an issue dealing with the confirmation of a nominee for 
U.S. Trade Ambassador. In conjunction with that will be an issue raised 
by the Senator from South Carolina [Mr. Hollings] on a matter relating 
to the negotiation of international trade agreements and whether in 
those negotiations, agreements can be reached that effectively change 
U.S. law. I intend to support the amendment offered by the Senator from 
South Carolina. I think he is absolutely correct, and I hope to be able 
to come and speak to that point when he offers his amendment.
  As we begin talking about the nomination of the U.S. Trade 
Ambassador, I want to take a moment to mention something that occurred 
about 2 weeks ago which passed almost unnoticed in this town, and it 
relates to the issue of trade. It relates to the kind of trade 
ambassador we have and relates to the kind of trade policies we employ.
  A couple of weeks ago, we learned that in this last year the 
merchandise trade deficit experienced by the United States of America 
was $188 billion--a $188 billion trade deficit. This makes 21 
consecutive years of U.S. merchandise trade deficits, with a cumulative 
total of nearly $2 trillion.
  We have spent a lot of time in recent days with books stacked on 
books 8 feet high in this Chamber showing fiscal policy and budgets. 
Perhaps we should have a chair or a table that stacks piles and piles 
of trade agreements and trade deficits one on top of another to show 
what we owe others in the world from an accumulation of nearly $2 
trillion in trade deficits.
  That is the other deficit, the deficit no one wants to talk about, 
the deficit no one wants to address. And yet, it is a deficit that 
predicts a weakness and a continual weakening in America's 
manufacturing base. That which we used to produce at home is now all 
too often produced abroad. That which was manufactured here is 
manufactured somewhere else. Good jobs that paid well with good 
benefits here are now offshore. And that is what this deficit spells.
  No country in history that I am aware of has long remained a strong, 
dominant world power without retaining its core manufacturing base, for 
economic health in any country is not what you consume but, rather, 
what

[[Page S1941]]

you produce. What you produce is measured by the strength and the 
breadth and the dimensions of your manufacturing base. This trade 
deficit is injuring our country. No one seems to care much about it or 
be willing to do much about it.
  Six countries comprise more than 90 percent of our current trade 
deficit: Japan, nearly 30 percent of the deficit; China, 24 percent of 
the deficit; Canada and Mexico, which represents NAFTA, the NAFTA trade 
agreement, that is 24 percent of the deficit; Germany and Taiwan 
together, about 16 percent of the deficit.
  NAFTA was one the most recent trade debates we have had in this 
Chamber. We were told that if we have a free trade relationship with 
Mexico and Canada, our two nearest neighbors, we would have new vistas 
of economic opportunity and create hundreds of thousands of new 
American jobs. Well, NAFTA was passed--not with my vote, but NAFTA was 
passed. The NAFTA bill was enacted, it is now law, and now we are 
choking in trade debt with our two neighbors.
  The architects of NAFTA knew what they were doing. They constructed a 
kind of economic cow that feeds in the United States and is milked by 
both neighbors. No one that I know of can credibly come around to this 
Chamber who had advertised the virtues of NAFTA and now do anything but 
be embarrassed with what has happened. What has happened is injuring 
this country. Giant trade deficits with Canada and Mexico are hurting 
this country.
  Mexico now sends more automobiles to the United States than the 
United States exports to all the rest of the world. Let me say that 
again because I think it is important. Mexico now ships more 
automobiles into the United States of America than the United States of 
America exports to all of the rest of the world.
  We were told: Well, NAFTA, that's just a little old thing so that 
some of those low-skilled jobs can go down south. They could do some of 
those low-skilled jobs at lower labor costs down south. So, what are 
the largest imports into the United States from Mexico today? The 
product of low-skilled jobs? No. Electronics, automobile parts, 
automobiles. Exactly the opposite of what was predicted.
  My point is that we must be concerned about this, we must be vigilant 
about it, and we must try to do something about it. We must have the 
same energy in this Chamber on this issue as there has been exhibited 
on the issue of fiscal policy, the budget deficits that result from 
fiscal policy that is out of balance.
  There is merit, enormous merit in requiring that we march toward a 
balanced budget in the fiscal policy in this country because you cannot 
keep saddling your children and grandchildren with consumption that you 
now have and saying, well, we are going to consume, but you pay the 
bills. That is not fair, it is not right, and it is not healthy for 
this country's economy.
  There is something else that is fundamentally unhealthy about this 
country's economy, and that is our trade relationships that result in 
this enormous trade deficit that we have, a merchandise trade deficit 
of $188 billion. I could spend hours talking about the specifics, and I 
cannot and I will not because I do not have the time. Let me just 
mention one item, and I will bet not many people understand.
  For example: Let's talk about T-bone steak that is shipped from the 
United States to Japan, just to demonstrate the low expectations we 
have of those with whom we trade. Some while ago there was a 
negotiation on beef from America to Japan, and at the end of the 
negotiation there was a day of feasting, people believing that those 
who engaged in these negotiations had just won a gold medal at the 
Olympics. Enormous success, we were told. They crowed about the 
successful negotiation on beef.
  Well, where are we now some years later? We are getting more beef 
into Japan. That is true. So they all say that is enormously 
successful. Guess what. There is a 50 percent tariff on American beef 
being sent to Japan. Does anybody under any set of circumstances 
believe that is success, that we now are able to get beef into Japan 
with a 50 percent tariff, and therefore we ought to say, ``Hosanna''?
  That is not fair trade. That is not free trade. That is not open 
trade. It is not fair for this country. It is not fair for our beef 
producers. And I can go through line after line and example after 
example. T-bones to Tokyo. They ought to go there without a 50-percent 
tariff on them to be fair to our producers. We purchase much of what 
they export to us. They ought to purchase what we export to them 
without impediment.

  I do not want to go on. I would like to talk about trade in some more 
detail, with my colleague from West Virginia, Senator Byrd, and Senator 
Hollings and others. I would say, for myself, and I expect I could say 
on their behalf, we do not complain about this as people who believe 
that we ought to put walls around our country.
  I believe in expanded trade. I believe in expanded opportunity. But I 
darned sure believe in retaining a manufacturing base in this country, 
insisting that trade around the world be fair trade. Nobody in this 
country working in a manufacturing plant ought to have to compete with 
a 14-year-old working 14 hours a day making 14 cents an hour. Nobody 
under any condition ought to be expected to or ought to have to compete 
with that, and it happens every day in every way under our trade 
agreements.
  I am just saying the other deficit, nearly $2 trillion at this point, 
with this year's trade deficit being one of the largest in history, 
that deficit we ought to care about and ought to do something about.
  Ambassador Barshefsky--we are going to vote on her. She is tough. She 
has confronted a number of other countries on trade relationships in a 
significant way. I appreciate that. But she is only as tough as the 
administration will allow her to be in demanding fair trade. The last 
several administrations, the last four administrations, in fact, have 
been disappointments to me on trade, including this one. They have done 
better than previous administrations, but not good enough. It is not 
good enough for this country.
  It used to be, we could handle international competition with one 
hand tied behind our backs because we were the biggest, the best, the 
most. That is not true anymore. We face shrewd, tough, international 
competitors and it is time we understand that trade relationships must 
be fair and must be balanced, and must care about this country's 
productive sector as well.
  I am not going to speak at length about the amendment offered by 
Senator Hollings. I do intend to support it when he offers it. I hope 
to be able to come down and speak about it. But I did want to say a few 
words, just as a precursor to a discussion we will have about the 
confirmation of another trade ambassador.
  We have had trade ambassadors. We have confirmed them. We have heard 
the talk about straightening out some of our trade relationships. But 
year after year, the merchandise trade deficit continues to grow with 
almost no notice and almost no one seeming to care about its impact on 
this country.
  Mr. President, I expect to come back later in the day when we debate 
these issues. With that I yield the floor.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Roberts). The Senator from Ohio is 
recognized.
  Mr. McCAIN. Will the Senator from Ohio yield to me for just 1 minute?
  Mr. DeWINE. I will be happy to yield.
  Mr. McCAIN. I appreciate the remarks of the Senator from North 
Dakota. The fact is, it is hard for me to understand the argument when 
the American economy is the best it has been, in the opinion of any 
expert, in a long, long time. Our unemployment is low, our trade 
continues to grow, our economy continues to grow. It is a direct result 
of free trade. How can we make the argument, which will be done later 
on, that somehow we should be reraising barriers that are protectionist 
and isolationist when it flies in the face of what every outside expert 
says has been the main engine of growth of the American economy, and a 
that is free trade?
  What Ms. Barshefsky has just done, in the negotiation of the telecom 
agreement, is a signal, an important and remarkable advance to the 
effort of free trade in allowing American companies and corporations 
into foreign markets so we can hire more

[[Page S1942]]

Americans and continue to have this remarkable growth in our economy 
and a bright future for Americans. The debate will be drawn, time after 
time, and has been, between protectionism, between the desire to raise 
those protectionist barriers, to go back to the good old days of Smoot-
Hawley or whether we are going to move forward with free trade and 
reduce barriers.

  I believe the American people and those people who are engaged in 
business, those who are in the business of doing business, will 
strongly support the position that the administration holds of free 
trade and reduction of barriers for competition.
  I yield back to my colleague from Ohio.
  Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I now ask unanimous consent the period of 
morning business be extended until the hour of 1:30 and I be permitted 
to speak for up to 20 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. LEVIN. Reserving the right to object, I am wondering whether I 
could reserve 8 minutes of that time, between now and 1:30, as part of 
the unanimous consent agreement?
  Mr. DeWINE. I have no objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LEVIN. I wonder if my friend from Ohio will yield me just 1 
minute of that time now while the Senator from North Dakota is on the 
floor, to react to his comments?
  Mr. DeWINE. I will be more than happy to do that.
  Let me just state the topic I want to talk about is going to take 
awhile. So I will be more than happy to yield. If you go on too long, I 
will simply come back later on. That will be fine.
  Mr. LEVIN. I just ask if the Senator will yield 1 minute, and then I 
will yield the floor and come back for the remainder of my 8 minutes. 
But while Senator Dorgan is on the floor, I just wanted to comment for 
a few seconds. I just wanted to compliment Senator Dorgan for his 
comments. His speech is a free trade speech. We all have to listen 
carefully to what he said. That 50-percent tariff on American beef 
going to Tokyo--it is absurd that we tolerate it.
  In NAFTA, we permit, for 25 years, Mexico making it a crime to sell 
an American used car in Mexico. That is part of NAFTA. NAFTA, for 10 
years, restricts American-assembled automobiles from going into Mexico. 
So, what the Senator from North Dakota is pleading with us to do, is to 
insist that we have as much access for our manufactured goods and our 
agricultural products to other countries as they do to our country. I 
commend him on his remarks and I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio is recognized.
  Mr. DORGAN. Will the Senator from Ohio yield 30 seconds to me?
  Mr. DeWINE. I will be more than happy to.
  Mr. DORGAN. I will not engage the remarks of the Senator except to 
say we should reserve the decision on this point. One can drive down a 
street and see a Cadillac in front of an expensive house, and if you do 
not understand the debt that will be used to repossess the house and 
the Cadillac, you don't understand the financial position there. The 
same with our country. The fact is, our abiding trade deficits are 
undermining our country's long-term economic future and we had better 
not decide to ignore them. We had better confront them on behalf of 
American producers and on behalf of this country's interests. This is a 
debate we must have soon.
  I appreciate very much the indulgence of the Senator from Ohio.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio is recognized again.

                          ____________________